summarize_dump

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by naming what the summary will contain and that the dump may come from spool or a dataset, which is real behavioral content beyond the annotations; it stops short of covering limits, permissions, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the qualifying source modes at the end. No wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the remaining burden is explaining what the tool produces, which the description does by listing completion codes, failing module/offset, LE conditions, and section inventory. The missing piece is sibling differentiation from summarize_abends, but otherwise it is complete for a read-only dump summarizer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so dsn, jobId, ddName, member, and environment are already documented. The description's 'spool DD or dataset' phrasing reinforces the two input modes but adds no syntax, default, or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Summarize) and a precise resource (abend dump: CEEDUMP, SYSMDUMP, SYSUDUMP), and enumerates the extracted content (completion codes, module/offset, LE conditions, section inventory). It is clearly a dump-analysis tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling summarize_abends.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It mentions the two input sources ('from spool DD or dataset') but never says when to choose this over summarize_abends, analyze_job_failure, or lookup_abend_code. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer the selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.